Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

I think you agree it would not cost very mush. This is not about money. If it was just a small minority of people questioning the moon landing I
would understand NASA not wanting to dignify their position. However, it's not a small number of people. It's millions and millions.

Would moon hoaxers just call "CGI"? No. NASA could ask many of the various well known moon hoaxers to attend the experiment, and watch in person.
If NASA could prove 1/6th gravity to the people who are currently leading the moon hoax that would end the debate for most. Including me.

The cost would be tiny...

Yet it does not happen...

So?

Have you asked them?

Better yet: do it all yourself, and, as this is quite simple to do: use the math to account for air resistance.

air density at sea level and various altitudes are known facts.

In other words: you (and others) are using this as a excuse when in reality, there is NO excuse.

So again: do it yourself, and show that air resistance was calculated for.

You'll have your proof one way or another, and you (and others) can't say that the results were rigged.

I wish there were unequivocal proof. During the moon era what probably happened is NASA, or anyone for that matter, didn't even think of a way to
offer proof because everyone "knew" man had gone to the moon. There was no questioning. But yes, proof is important and necessary. Maybe if one of
the moon astronauts asked for the test you described or other tests, just to prove to people and to history that what they did they actually did, it
would make NASA seem more of a public agency than a private club.

And why don't they have mirrors that big? Bill Gates or someone could toss a couple of billion dollars into the project to come up with a Very Huge
Football Field Size Telescope (VHFFST) and actually do something for humanity with his spare change.

Call Bill Gates up and ask him?

I don't have the money for it, and I'm perfectly happy with my 5 inch, 8 inch and 10 inch telescopes that I have. If I want to see the moon in even
better detail, I use the LROC web site.

But if you think people that do have the money (which btw it would be a whole bunch of smaller mirrors linked together. It's impossible to make s
perfect sheet of glass that big with no imperfections. Look up the history on telescope making), then trying emailing them, snail mailing them etc.

And why don't they have mirrors that big? Bill Gates or someone could toss a couple of billion dollars into the project to come up with a Very Huge
Football Field Size Telescope (VHFFST) and actually do something for humanity with his spare change.

Call Bill Gates up and ask him?

I don't have the money for it, and I'm perfectly happy with my 5 inch, 8 inch and 10 inch telescopes that I have. If I want to see the moon in even
better detail, I use the LROC web site.

But if you think people that do have the money (which btw it would be a whole bunch of smaller mirrors linked together. It's impossible to make s
perfect sheet of glass that big with no imperfections. Look up the history on telescope making), then trying emailing them, snail mailing them etc.

I would hope that someone who works for Gates would read this, and take the idea right to his office without the bother of me writing him, calling
him, or joining him for lunch down to the yacht club. I know the history and the difficulty of designing and polishing the glass, but the first
half-billion of the monies could be used to perfect those techniques in order to make the mirrors. People in the U.S. are perfectly willing to give
the banks 700 billion, as they did a few years ago, and something like the same to the Pentagon each year, but fret about a few hundred million going
into the NASA budget, into university and other institutional telescope projects, etc. When the moon missions were occurring the public was almost 100
percent behind the space projects (another reason on the con side actually, fake the landings to up public interest and money), and had no distaste
for spending money on any explorational projects (telescopes or manned missions). Now, not so much, and that is the fault of the media and
governmental backpedaling.

And MrN9k, you now have enought posts to start threads on any subject you wish to share with us. I hope you stick around to do so. Welcome to ATS, by
the way, and don't judge us as too argumentative, a certain percentage of people here call names and na na nanana people, just like in any very
crowded room of people who think they're the smartest person in the room.

Sorry, I don't know what you are suggesting I do. Obviously if this is all so obvious it's obviously been done elsewhere in a way which obviously
proves everything right?

Please link me to something where someone has done the calculations you are talking about. I do not know what you mean. Obviously...

Or is the only way to find proof for me to have to run away and do lots of maths myself in a dark room somewhere without actually knowing what you are
suggesting I try to work out...

More details please...

If you don't know enough physics to do this experiment, then find someone who does (and who cares).

That's where they statement in my last post (find someone whom you trust to do it) comes in.

It most likely has been done before......and most likely discounted by Moon Hoaxers for one reason or another.

:shrug:

However, if it will make you believe one way or another, then do it, or find someone that can. You don't need a vacuum chamber, as long as you figure
in the air density for air resistance applied to the surface area of the pendulum and account for it in the math (someone that is knowledgeable in
physics will know how to do this).

I really don't care how it changes your mind (I post for lurkers on this subject, the members or guests that read, but are on the fence. I don't
post to try and change active poster's minds in threads like this, as I've seen over a very long period of time that it's futile).

I'm just say that you have an experiment that can be easily done. So do it, and stop waiting for NASA to do it, and then claim that because they
don't do it means something significant.

In otherwords: get pro active. Actually do the research, or work with someone that can. Even if you think it proves the moon landings are fake, it
means you got up from your computer chair and did actual research.

That I would applaud (even if I disagree with your results). I admire actual foot work, even if it proves me wrong.

I wonder if we are the first people suggesting someone do this? Apparently with some simple maths you are suggesting that it's possible to remove
the air resistance factor and model the movement of the pendulum?

You said
"I've pointed out that you CAN compensate for the air resistance (it's a known constant that you can do the math for). "

Then your understanding of maths must be far greater than mine. I do not see how it would be possible to compensate. Sure there is a constant for
air resistance, but how would you apply it? Look at the motion of that pendulum. It's on a ribbon which is wide and so it will affect the motion.
Also, the motion on the moon takes two parts.

Did I miss the point where this was explained to me?

If it is possible to remove the air resistance factor I find it strange that this has never been done before.

I think you may be wrong. I don't think it's possible to simply do this. The physics are NOT simple. If I am wrong please show me where it has been
done before, or simply show me how to do it.

Apparently that would be easy for you to do...

Oh, and to "In otherwords: get pro active. Actually do the research, or work with someone that can. Even if you think it proves the moon landings are
fake, it means you got up from your computer chair and did actual research."

I have been researching this for over 4 years now. I'm not new to this. Please don't make assumptions. Thanks.

I wonder if we are the first people suggesting someone do this? Apparently with some simple maths you are suggesting that it's possible to remove
the air resistance factor and model the movement of the pendulum?

You said
"I've pointed out that you CAN compensate for the air resistance (it's a known constant that you can do the math for). "

Then your understanding of maths must be far greater than mine. I do not see how it would be possible to compensate. Sure there is a constant for
air resistance, but how would you apply it? Look at the motion of that pendulum. It's on a ribbon which is wide and so it will affect the motion.
Also, the motion on the moon takes two parts.

Did I miss the point where this was explained to me?

If it is possible to remove the air resistance factor I find it strange that this has never been done before.

I understand math and physics because I'm an electrical engineer.

Air resistance is well studied. You have to know about it to build certain things, especially when you expect to have a lot of air resistance.

Building jets. Building sky scrapes. Building Missiles. Building rockets.

Ask yourself: how did they know how to build the space shuttle so that it would not burn up on reentry?

Air resistance is dependent upon 3 things:

1) Density of the air.
2) Amount of surface area that is moving against that air.
3) Velocity of the object (or the air)

When driving a car, stick your hand out the window. Yes, we all had our mom or dad yell at us to not do that, but do it anyways.
Now, if you're moving fast, say above 45 Mph, turn your hand on edge so that your palm faces the road. when you slightly tilt your hand up or down,
you can feel the air pushing on it trying to move your hand up or down (congrats, you've just discovered "lift" and why wings on planes work). Now
turn your hand so that the edge of it is facing the road, and the full palm of your hand is facing the air.
Your hand is being pushed back.

If you either increase your speed, or the area of your hand, it will get pushed back even harder.

Now, slow down. Go about 5 Mph........how much resistance do you feel? It will have dropped significantly, due to the fact that your velocity is much
lower now. And that is key: the slower the object, the LESS air resistance will come into play.

However, you CAN still factor it in. Especially if you want to cross all your "T's" and dot your "i's"

Air Resistance or Drag can be calculated in. Here is a link to wikipedia where they show the
formulas for it just fine.

Thanks for the lesson is putting your hand out of a car window. Yes, I also have a GCSE in physics and a degree in an engineering subject... I'm
not sure that matters though...

However, I don't think it's possible to work this out like you suggest you can. The page you linked me to would be great for modelling an object
moving on a fixed plane with a fixed air resistance. However, the pendulum is not on a fixed plane, and does not have a fixed resistance. It is
suspended on a wide ribbon which would affect the resistance a little at the top and a lot at the bottom. Also the motion of the pendulum takes two
stages, and the transition between the stages causes the ribbon to jerk against the air resistance in a way which it would not not in a vacuum. I
don't see how it would be possible to compensate or model that.

If I'm wrong... Please show me how to do this. Otherwise admit that it's actually not as simple as you suggest.

This argument now appears to be breaking down into "Why don't you go and do it then"? To which I answer... Why has this not already been done by
NASA?

Again it comes down to this... Apparently NASA could prove they went to the moon if they wanted to. It would cost them virtually nothing. It would
take virtually no time. Simply recreate the pendulum experiment in a vacuum on Earth... Yet they choose not to do it. I ask why. I don't think
that's an unreasonable question.

Thanks for the lesson is putting your hand out of a car window. Yes, I also have a GCSE in physics and a degree in an engineering subject... I'm
not sure that matters though...

However, I don't think it's possible to work this out like you suggest you can. The page you linked me to would be great for modelling an object
moving on a fixed plane with a fixed air resistance. However, the pendulum is not on a fixed plane, and does not have a fixed resistance. It is
suspended on a wide ribbon which would affect the resistance a little at the top and a lot at the bottom. Also the motion of the pendulum takes two
stages, and the transition between the stages causes the ribbon to jerk against the air resistance in a way which it would not not in a vacuum. I
don't see how it would be possible to compensate or model that.

If I'm wrong... Please show me how to do this. Otherwise admit that it's actually not as simple as you suggest.

This argument now appears to be breaking down into "Why don't you go and do it then"? To which I answer... Why has this not already been done by
NASA?

Again it comes down to this... Apparently NASA could prove they went to the moon if they wanted to. It would cost them virtually nothing. It would
take virtually no time. Simply recreate the pendulum experiment in a vacuum on Earth... Yet they choose not to do it. I ask why. I don't think
that's an unreasonable question.

I never said it would be simple. I only said that it can be done. It's not impossible.

If you can't do it, then you could search for someone who could. You said you've been researching this for 4 years.
From what you have suggested (your education) then you should know that physics can be used to define and quantify any physical force. And again, even
if you can't do it, someone else can.

Also, I've explained why: tax payer's money, priorities on projects and the importance of those projects.

Someone comes into my shop and wants us to run a experiment to show them how capacitance reactance works. The cost would be measured in cents as for
the equipment (since it's there) and parts.

My boss would throw them out on their rear end.

He's not paying me and others in the lab to do charity work. He's paying us to build and fix things for paying customers.

However, it doesn't hurt to ask NASA to do what you are asking. The worse that can happen is: they say "No." or they don't reply back.

I've asked this before, so I'll ask again: Have you asked them? Has anyone asked them to? Can you show where they refused?

For all you know, you might get a reply back showing that they've done it before, and a PDF file with the results.

"I never said it would be simple. I only said that it can be done. It's not impossible. "

Then show me how. I don't think it's possible.

"From what you have suggested (your education) then you should know that physics can be used to define and quantify any physical force. And again,
even if you can't do it, someone else can."

I do not claim to be an expert in physics, but I do know that statement is wrong. Somethings can not be calculated such as the movement of 3 objects
in a 3d relativistic universe.

"Also, I've explained why: tax payer's money, priorities on projects and the importance of those projects. "
And I explained that it would cost such as tiny amount of money it would be insignificant.

"Someone comes into my shop and wants us to run a experiment to show them how capacitance reactance works. The cost would be measured in cents as for
the equipment (since it's there) and parts.

My boss would throw them out on their rear end.

He's not paying me and others in the lab to do charity work. He's paying us to build and fix things for paying customers. "

If I was the boss of a company and a large percentage of the population doubted that my company had actually done the single greatest achievement that
it had done the I personally would want to set the record straight. I would be very happy to prove to everyone just how great my company was. I
would not want the negative PR of people casting dispersions over my company. I would fix it. I suspect that you boss would also...

"However, it doesn't hurt to ask NASA to do what you are asking. The worse that can happen is: they say "No." or they don't reply back. "

You are obviously joking. If you seriously think that me personally asking NASA to perform this test would get it done then... Well... No
comment...

"I've asked this before, so I'll ask again: Have you asked them? Has anyone asked them to? Can you show where they refused? "

Nope I have not. Fair point... However I would suggest that the opportunity given by Myhtbusters would have been a good time for NASA to recreate
the pendulum experiment. I wonder why they choose to focus on other issues which can be more easily debunked.

"For all you know, you might get a reply back showing that they've done it before, and a PDF file with the results."

You may well be right! I hope so. It would be nice to have my mind set straight on this. I'm happy to be "proved" wrong. Well, actually not
"wrong" as I'm not saying I know one way or the other. I'm just asking questions.

Off topic, however, since you are new here, there is a better way to quote someone.

Instead of using "" and their texts, click on the Quote button to reply if you want to quote all or part of their posts.

BBC code for forums like this use the following to make a quote box:

[ quote ] is used to turn on the box (but without the spaces I put in) and [ /quote ] turns off the quote box (but again, without the spaces.

So here is an example of making a quote box.

It's easier on everyone's eyes to read, and helps to make other readers know that you are quoting someone and not saying it yourself.

Back on topic:

I'm correcting myself. I DID actually say that this was simple to do that anyone could do it.

I'll correct myself and say "It's not really simple, but yes, anyone can do it."

The reason I say anyone can do this, is because I believe that if anyone wants to, they can learn anything. All it takes is an interest and passion to
learn.

As for asking NASA: don't be shy.
you'd be very surprised at the amount of people you can email through their contact lists and get replies. People on here at ATS do it all the time.
And not just NASA, but universities, observatories, you name it.

Many scientist and engineers (regardless of any NASA connection) are more than happy to answer questions when they can, especially if it's about work
that they've done, or in their field of work.

Here at ATS many members have asked questions by emailing many of these individuals, and have come back here and shared their answers with us.

I'm not saying that they'd jump up and go: Hey! You're right! We'll schedule this next Friday and get back to you!
No, even I would be surprised at that.

However, you might get a response either explaining why they've never bothered (IF they've never bothered) or again, they might have the results of
such a test sitting around and can share it with you.

It never hurts to ask. I used to be a teacher and I firmly subscribe to: The only stupid question is the one that didn't get asked.

That's a much better way of doing things... I suspect there a page on this site somewhere which describes how to do other such things like linking
videos how to do other formatting. I will see if I can find it.

RE e-mailing NASA... Hea. You are right Why not. Maybe I will e-mail them... I do find it odd if they/no one has ever done this experiment, I will
see what they say...

I'm not in either camp Al. To do so would mean I had "Faith" in one side or the other. I'm not a fan of faith... Proof
please...

Once again, what would you consider proof? There are documents, eyewitnesses, film, mission reports rocks. What, exactly do you need? Are you
"on the wall" about World War II? Isn't it possible that the whole thing was faked to give the "Greatest Generation" a five year vacation in
Europe at the taxpayers' expense?

I assume you just read that one post above and did not read my others. I described it above already. Perhaps you might like to read back.

To clarify:

I want proof of 1/6th gravity. NASA (or anyone with a vacuum chamber) can provide that by recreating the pendulum experiment in a vacuum on earth and
allowing that to be compared to the experiment they did on the moon.

IMO if this was done the vast majority of those who doubt the moon landings would be convinced.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.